Skip to main content

tv   Hardball With Chris Matthews  MSNBC  February 8, 2013 11:00pm-12:00am PST

11:00 pm
>> these are not the drones you're looking for. >> actual footage, president obama skeet shooting at the white house. look at this. >> pull. >> the white house released president obama skeet shooting but nobody bothered to find out what he's actually shooting at. we have it. take a look. >> mitt romney's son, tag -- tag. >> you're it. >> denying reports he will run for senate this year. he is saying the timing isn't right, just like when his dad tries to clap along to a song. >> 49ers super bowl champions, those that donate to countries in africa and south america. no, no, they are. which is good news because those people are getting tired of wearing those president romney t-shirts. >> what is your name?
11:01 pm
>> former massachusetts senator scott brown is in talks to become a contributor on fox news. first they have to check his background and test his knowledge of current events and if he fails he'll start monday. >> last two months they fired sarah palin, former part-time governor of alaska and dick morris, well-known political pundit, fired both of them. fox news. well, great. two more jobs lost under obama. thanks a lot. >> i've been in a bit of a mudslide on my face. >> the late-night comedy writers get the last word. fight on the right. let's play "hardball." ♪ good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. let me start tonight with this
11:02 pm
horror show happening on the right. as i speak, you can hear the rumble of right versus right vitriol, fingers wagging angrily, even crazily, in every direction now. karl rove, the architect of the iraq war, the escapee from the cia scandal, the proud sponsor of the conservative feats in 2006 and 2008 who wasted fat cat money by the tens of millions, that karl rove is thumping around the country right now like a wounded elephant threatening to crush the party's fringes. tea partiers, look out. he may not be able to beat democrats, but he's got big, bad you in his sights. so the fight has begun. while steve king, matt kibbe, joe walsh, rush limbaugh, all the inhabitants of the cuckoo nest are scrambling because karl rove is drawing lines in the sand. want republicans to win? cut out the crazies? want the democrats, stop giving them easy targets, rape candidates and witches. stop making the democrats look smart and reasonable by running
11:03 pm
stupid and crazy candidates. the joy is, i have to say this, and it's really quite funny, each of the right wing factions thinks that they are the sane ones, they are the ones who have to protect the party from the others. well, tonight the duel to the death drives deeper. it's do or die, fight to the death. the winners get to run against hillary clinton. the losers get to say it's not their fault they lost. wait a minute. that doesn't make any sense. and neither does this fight on the right for the right to say you're right. with me tonight are two msnbc political analysts, joy reid of the grio and david corn from "mother jones." joy, it really is a joy to watch this, to watch rove running around as some sort of new matt dillon cleaning up the party, cleaning up main street from all the bad guys when, in fact, many people would say that karl rove has been the problem from, well, since 2000 when he brought us "w." >> absolutely crazy. i love the way you called them the cuckoo's nest. karl rove's strategy and the reason he's considered a smart guy in politics is he found a way to convince the cuckoo's nest that george w. bush was really their guy and convinced
11:04 pm
evangelicals that george w. bush is your guy and convinced the right wing. he passed off neoconservatism as conservatism. he passed off the idea of endless war and nation building. he sold them a bill of goods, and what they got back was medicare part d, a ballooning deficit, and a financial crisis that devastated the country, a failed war -- a war in iraq that was ill-advised to put it mildly, and now the cuckoo's nest who he cultivated as the ground troops, they think they're in charge and they're not going to listen to him saying they're not. >> what was the big thing with karl rove? did he start a war to celebrate the tax cut or have a tax cut to celebrate the war. i mean, he put it all together. i forgot to mention the prescription drug thing thrown in without financing it. >> right, right, right. and, you know, he did do a great job, you know, mobilizing and
11:05 pm
energizing the right wing base to get behind george w. bush, and then he and others did a great job in the last few years under barack obama of energizing them by demonizing barack obama and pushing them to the fringe. and now he comes along and says, wait a second, you've gone too far. this monster that i have helped to create has gone too far, and i'm picking up the pitchfork and i got my fire, my torches, and i'm going to go door to door backed by billionaires in texas to get -- >> you don't know this. this is new testament stuff to you. joy, do you know the parable of the unjust steward? the guy is about to get sacked. he's about to lose everything. he goes around and cuts deals with all the people his bosses have been dealing with and gets his piece of the action. it's very secular values to some of this stuff. rove went on fox last night, karl himself, to defend himself and to profess his love for the tea party. what is he up to? he's trying to trash can these people. let's watch.
11:06 pm
>> i love these groups that are criticizing us saying they're fake conservatives. well, i repeat, we spent $30 million for tea party senate candidates and $25 million. there's no group that comes close to what crossroads has done in terms of financial support for tea party candidates. >> and we believe you. >> tea party or not, it's not the question of tea party or not, it's a question of whether or not they're a bad candidate or not. >> so what does o'reilly think of these people? o'reilly has an iq. i may disagree with him, but he must be looking at rove like what's your latest stuff here? what are you selling here? >> exactly. he might as well -- karl rove should have written on that whiteboard, i have no principles. karl rove doesn't care what the ideology is. he's just selling a product. remember, he's the guy who described the iraq war as a product and said you don't take a product to market in august. this guy is into power. he's always been into just getting power for its own sake. his first ever campaign he was involved in was in college when he snuck onto the campaign of a
11:07 pm
democrat running for something like treasurer in illinois and wrote those leaflets which he's distributed to homeless shelters saying, for a good time and free women and liquor, come to this democrat's rally. >> i just saw him dancing across the stage next to david gregory. i wouldn't mind seeing that all the time. sliding down the iq scale here to texas governor rick perry, he told laura ingraham that the tea party isn't at fault for the losses wracked up by republicans. let's listen to governor perry. >> i would suggest to you that people who try to moderate their views to win a particular vote are going to be weaker and weaker as time goes. i think people want to see people they believe, people they trust, and people that are going to be consistent in their positions. so moderation from the standpoint of in pursuit of electoral victory is a failure in my opinion. >> you know, every once in a
11:08 pm
wile somebody comes along in politics who doesn't know anything about politics. spiro agnew would talk about people being squishy soft on communism, unaware of the whole mccarthy period, 20 years of that kind of talk getting you in nothing but trouble. perry calls himself a texas conservative who has no memory or any knowledge of apparently the history of modern conservatism. when he said moderation gets you in trouble, well, let's listen to barry goldwater who cooked his party for years with this line back in '64. >> i would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. >> you know, all i can say is wow. that kind of straight from the hip, right wing talk, and there's perry with absolutely no knowledge of this kind of talk that moderation weakens you. civility -- >> don't tell me you have any expectations -- >> okay.
11:09 pm
i'm just setting him up. >> let me play off -- >> are you accusing me of parroting these guys if i suggest they might have had an iq? >> yes. let me play off something joy said. she talked about karl rove in a very cynical way, and i agree with that. but at the same time there is a divide and there's always been in the republican party between the establishment crowd and the populist -- >> what side is rove on? >> right now he's more establishment, but when a party is out of -- >> that's what a party establishment looks like. >> exactly. but when a party is out of power, that's when these tensions come out and they start eating their own. they can't go after barack obama now, but in order to maintain their own power and to have a debate -- >> you know, let's get back to the person stuff. rush limbaugh sided with the tea party earlier this week saying rove's plan will backfire on conservatives. let's watch. >> the establishment republicans, the inside the beltway establishment types,
11:10 pm
remember, these are the people that supported charlie crist over marco rubio. these are the brains. these are the guys who are going to protect the republican party from you. they also opposed rand paul. and, remember, they supported arlen specter over pat toomey and on and on. there are countless examples. the bottom line is they don't have any better record at picking winners than the, quote, unquote, amateur tea party types do. and even when they pick winners, what do we end up winning? we get squishy republican moderates. >> there's that squishy. >> they got tax hikes for -- >> we have to remind ourselves -- this is this man. they say a certain kind of bug or insect would survive a nuclear war. we don't have to use those terms, but we know which bug it is. look at the rap sheet on this guy, karl rove. let's go down memory lane and remind ourselves at least, if
11:11 pm
the right wing doesn't, of some of karl rove's greatest hits. as a top adviser to george w. bush, he sold the war in iraq to everybody it seems. he got off scot-free even though he was at the center of the cia leak scandal. walked from that one. the architect couldn't help a republican majority in the 2006 midterms bring the democrats back to power in both the house and senate for the first time. he blew it all on the table. and in 2012 the sunlight foundation reported that crossroads had a 1%, $1 in $100, return on its election investment. so karl rove failed putting together a republican realignment, failed in holding the house and the white house and the senate, lost all that. got involved in the cia leak case, somehow got through that where scooter did get caught and the president -- actually the vice president should have been caught. loses tons and tons of money. he's like one of these japanese investors in the american film industry. loot them every couple years with their latest projects
11:12 pm
because they don't really get it apparently or else they're just gung-ho to get into hollywood. he's taken so much money from people and lost so many races he's down to $1 return on a $100. that's not a good investment, joy, and yet there he is out there telling the republican party what it's got to do is get rid of the other guys, not him. >> absolutely. i'm glad you played that clip from rush limbaugh because in a lot of ways karl rove and rush limbaugh are very much the same. they're both using the same sort of know-nothing crowd, the people in the hinterlands who are angry, who don't understand why the country is changing, who don't understand the new america they don't feel comfortable in. they're both using them to sell a product. for rush limbaugh it's to get his advertisers, and he has to keep his show going. for karl rove it's the accumulation of power by tricking people. he doesn't necessarily -- >> terrestrial radio. young lady, you've done it again. you're teaching me this business again. i'm in -- >> radio as opposed to xm --
11:13 pm
>> i used to be in radio. >> when is the first time you used that term in your life? >> only because i used to be in the radio business. when you're in radio -- >> it's like e.t. terrestrial radio. >> but karl rove needs a raison d'etre, a reason to exist. he needs -- >> i know french. >> i know you know french. >> he needs a reason to exist. the tea party has gotten their market share of the republican product, so he needs -- >> both of you guys, tell me this, what percentage of the regular voting republican party, the party that voted for "w," we're going to learn something tonight, joy, you first, what percentage of the regular republican voter, the people who vote regular republican for congress and president, is tea party oriented? in other words hard right? >> i think it's a third. i think the republican party really is one-third evangelicals, one-third tea party know-nothings, and one-third business types. >> the evangelicals in the hard right -- >> and the tea party and evangelicals blur. >> the talk about the primary electorate of the republican
11:14 pm
party, i think you get over 50% in many states are tea partyish. >> sharron angle, christine o'donnell. what happened to bob bennett? good-bye. >> it's not changing. >> these guys come from that world. >> and i'm sorry, go ahead. >> i was going to say the one thing -- a real operative, if he was a real political operative, rove would have seen the demographic changes. that was the core of this last election. he completely -- >> give him a little credit. he tried to bring in the latino vote, and he couldn't bring his party with him. see, i said something nice about karl rove. anyway. thanks, joy reid, have a nice weekend. you, too, david corn. how deep is the debate over drones? critics on the progressive left, some of them, and libertarian right are taking issue with the obama administration drone policy. this is a family dispute in my house. polls show most americans support, even most liberals if you will, even when it means killing americans who are plotting with al qaeda to kill other americans.
11:15 pm
plus, four senators, two democrats and two republicans, are really working on a deal to expand at least background checks for gun sales. two of the four senators are members of the nra. if they can strike a deal, then a big part of president obama's gun safety proposals could be within reach. plus, the terrific movie "silver linings playbook" puts mental illness in the spotlight tonight. we're joined by the director of that film, the great david russell, to talk about the issue and the oscar history the movie could make. i think it's got a shot. texas governor rick perry escalates that war with his california counterpart -- he's not even slightly a counterpart. jerry brown is so much better. that's coming in the "sideshow" tonight. and this is "hardball" the place for politics. emergency workee trust duracell...?? duralock power preserve. locks in power for up to 10 years in storage. now...guaranteed. duracell with duralock. trusted everywhere. duracell with duralock. to find you a great deal, even if it's not with us. [ ding ] oh, that's helpful!
11:16 pm
well, our company does that, too. actually, we invented that. it's like a sauna in here. helping you save, even if it's not with us -- now, that's progressive! call or click today. no mas pantalones!
11:17 pm
well, here is a surprise. who is the most popular political figure in america? well, it shouldn't come as a big surprise. according to a new quinnipiac poll, it's hillary clinton. the former secretary of state has a 61% favorability rating compared to president obama who is at 51% and vice president biden who is at 46%. other national leaders are much lower. house speaker john boehner is at 20% favorable, 1 in 5. senator marco rubio is at 27%, 1 in 4, and paul ryan is at 34%, 1 in 3. we'll be right back.
11:18 pm
11:19 pm
welcome back to "hardball." america's drone warfare got a public airing yesterday as president obama's pick to head the cia went before senators at his confirmation hearing. john brennan strongly defended
11:20 pm
the program of which he's been called the chief architect. >> i think there is a misimpression on the part of some american people who believe that we take strikes to punish terrorists for past transgressions. nothing could be further from the truth. we only take such actions as a last resort to save lives when there's no other alternative to taking an action that's going to mitigate that threat. so we need to make sure there's an understanding, and the people that were standing up here today, i think they really have a misunderstanding of what we do as a government and the care that we take and the agony that we go through to make sure that we do not have any collateral injuries or deaths. >> well, brennan's testimony had been interrupted there you see by code pink five times, by anti-war protesters called code pink. polls show for the most part those protesters out there, and they're legitimate, represent a small minority of the country. most americans back using drones to carry out targeted assassinations, and while senators took issue with the white house's secrecy
11:21 pm
surrounding the program, no one voiced any objections to the drones themselves. this is going to be a hot discussion here, too. cynthia tucker is a visiting professor at the university of georgia. ron reagan is an msnbc analyst. i think you're both progressives. i was driving home from philadelphia last night, and i was listening to "the ed show" on radio, on satellite, and he took one of those polls. now, this question was hardly put together in a way that's justified one end of the answer, but it came out the other end i think. do you support the policy of targeted killings of american citizens? now, i would think maybe 1% would have said yes the way this was phrased. do you support the policy of targeted killings of american citizens? 78% said yes. a progressive audience that watches and listens to ed. a progressive audience, 78% while that show is on the air. i think he was surprised by it. i was certainly surprised by it. your thinking, ron. this is a progressive audience, 4 out of 5 are saying, yeah, get those bad guys. they're turncoats. if they're americans, they're not one of us, they're one of
11:22 pm
them now. your thoughts. >> i think most americans agree if there are individuals, meaning americans, that are imminently planning to cause destruction and death in the united states, that we ought to do something about it. we ought to interdict. the question though it seems to me is not whether we should do this at all but on whose say-so do we do it? do we do it simply on the word of somebody in the executive branch who has decided this american or some other individual needs to die and we're going to kill them or is there some judicial review? we're a country of checks and balances. we're a country that our administration is supposed to be transparent. if this is so justifiable, why was it so secret? >> why would you trust a judge o'leary that gets called up at 3:00 and asked if it's okay? why wouldn't you trust the elected officials more? >> it's at least another stop on
11:23 pm
the way to doing it. you're not leaving it up to one individual with a kill list who is unilaterally deciding that this person needs to die. you're going through some sort of process, so there's a check, there's a balance there. >> and you think a judge would stop this and have the guts to do that if they knew -- let's imagine the conversation. cynthia, you pick up on this. suppose you get a call in the middle of the night or with a few hours notice, we've got a target, a high-value target in yemen. we believe this person is about to conduct an operation against one of our ships in the gulf. we got to stop them. we've got the technology, we've got them in sights. do we do it? the judge is asked yes or no. how does he become -- >> chris -- >> how does he stop this and say i of my own volition say tough nuts, i'm not going to do it. >> i don't envision that that's the way the system would work. the people who are placed on these kill lists are on there for at least days, if not weeks or months, before the drone operators decide that this is the moment where we have the right intelligence to act on
11:24 pm
taking them out. so why not present that evidence to an independent review body at the moment you believe you have enough evidence to say, these people represent such a danger to the united states they need to be killed. i don't even care if that review happens after they're already dead. it's better than no review at all. you know, i'm with ron here. i don't have -- i'm a realist, and targeted killings have been part of u.s. policy for a very long time. you know, the cia tried many times to kill fidel castro. it was just unsuccessful at it. >> well that's -- >> i'm a realist. >> kill him, i'm not sure. but i can't deny it. i know they tried to defoliate him with his beard. i know they tried to give him hallucinogens. >> the poison cigar i think was meant to kill him, but the point being that i don't want any
11:25 pm
single individual, and, you know, i'm a supporter of president obama's, but i don't want any single individual, not george w. bush, not barack obama, to have the authority to say we're going to kill these people. and nor do i want it to be obama and a group of people over whom he has authority. i don't want it to be people in the military who answer to him. i want it to be people of an outside branch of government who feel the independence to disagree with the president. >> well said. i think yesterday john brennan was grilled about various aspects of this program, including the rights of americans who might be on the kill list. take a look at how he answered a question on that from senator ron wyden of oregon. let's listen. >> do you believe that the
11:26 pm
president should provide an individual american with the opportunity to surrender before killing him? >> any american who joins al qaeda will know full well that they have joined an organization that is at war with the united states and that has killed thousands upon thousands of individuals, many, many of them who are americans. >> i guess this goes back to, ron, to another tricky question. we'd like to believe that being born in the united states under the 14th amendment entitles you to all the rights all three of us have. you're entitled to full rights of american citizenship. at what point do you yield that up in any kind of moral way you think you're comfortable with? when do you yield it up? >> i think if you put on the uniform, so to speak, of another team and are looking to kill americans and attack the united states of america, that you've crossed a line and now, you know, you're going -- >> what about domestic terrorists in this country who tried to blow up and have blown up public facilities because they're enemies of the united states government at least.
11:27 pm
the way they look at it. >> this raises a very interesting question when we talk about drones. if the excuse for using drones is imminent threat to american lives, which seems to be the rationale, what if that threat is coming from within the united states? are we going to fly a drone over, you know, toledo, ohio, and target some house and send a missile -- >> i know the answer to this one. >> no, we're not going to do this one. >> i know the answer. we'll send in the fbi and catch the bastards -- i'm sorry -- that's what we'll do. >> there is another point that's worth making here. the french philosopher jean-paul sartre once said when you choose for yourself, you choose for all mankind. if we are okay sending drones over other countries to kill american citizens or other individuals without that country's permission, we have to acknowledge then that when this technology spreads to other countries, and it will, it's not that sophisticated, that we're okay then with other governments doing the same thing in other countries, and where does that lead exactly? >> on the same program, both of
11:28 pm
you, we have heard the phrase raison d'etre, and we have heard a reference to jean-paul sartre. i'm very proud of our program tonight. thank you very much, ron reagan. thank you. have a nice weekend. up next, texas governor rick perry escalates that fight, kind of a tussle, with california's jerry brown. i'm betting on brown in this one. and this is "hardball," the place for politics. [ thunder cr] [ female announcer ] some people like to pretend a flood
11:29 pm
could never happen to them. and that their homeowners insurance protects them. [ thunder crashes ] it doesn't. stop pretending. only flood insurance covers floods. ♪ visit to learn your risk.
11:30 pm
11:31 pm
back to "hardball." now to the "sideshow." some added heat on perry versus jerry today. earlier this week i told you about the tussle between the governors of our two biggest states, texas and california. rick perry began running a radio ad out in california trying to lure business owners to texas,
11:32 pm
and jerry brown was unmoved by the five-figure ad buy or as he put it -- >> it's not a burp. it's barely a fart. >> thank you. >> anyway, turns out perry isn't just sticking to the airwaves. next week he will be showing up himself in california, cities like san francisco and los angeles, to keep up the move to texas gimmick. anyway, a cartoonist for "the sacramento bee" is out with a pretend pitch. from perry, we got three advantages over california. first, we got your low taxes. second, we got your low wages, and i can't remember the third. to which the other guy responds, the wide open spaces in your head. anyway, next, it's no secret that chris christie and newark mayor cory booker aren't exactly best friends. i didn't know that. christie kicked off the week joking about his weight with david letterman. soon after he was telling a former white house physician to shut up for expressing concern over his health and his weight. anyway, guess what the project -- project booker just announced yesterday?
11:33 pm
his new partnership with weight watchers to help combat obesity up in newark. well, surely this one was in the works for a while, but strange about the talk and the timing. by the way, it seems like christie is still in attack mode over the comments from that physician. yesterday dr. connie mariano recounted the phone call she got from the governor. >> it was essentially the tone of the press conference but louder. >> pretty much yelled the whole time. >> uh-huh. if this is the way you handle stress, is this presidential? have to think about that. is this a presidential way to behave? come on. >> there's a political commentary from the doctor. apparently calling her a hack at the press conference was not enough. finally, bill clinton is ready to start campaigning again. big surprise. he spoke to house democrats at their retreat earlier today and told them he was all in to support them in upcoming midterm elections even though the 2010 go-around was rough. >> i went through both the last
11:34 pm
two election cycles. i did 133 events in 2010. i told hillary somewhere in the process of it that, i said, you know, we're going to take a terrible licking, and she said why do you keep agreeing to do more events? i said i don't want it on my conscience. i did this in '94, and i never want to live through it again without knowing that at least i got mowed down, not that i, you know, took a pass. >> anyway, for him it was a terrible licking, of course. bubba doesn't want to be far from the campaign trail in the last election. think about it. he's campaigning in 2014 for the democrats because he's looking forward to 2016 and hillary clinton as the presidential candidate. up next, gun safety. there's new reason to be optimistic that some kind of deal can get done on expanded background checks at least for gun sales, and that's ahead and that's looking good. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics.
11:35 pm
11:36 pm
11:37 pm
11:38 pm
11:39 pm
welcome back to "hardball." we're almost now hitting the two-month mark since the tragic shootings in newtown, connecticut. today we may be closer to a compromise. an unlikely foursome of senators, chuck schumer of new york, joe manchin of west virginia, tom coburn of oklahoma, and mark kirk of illinois are huddling together in hopes of finding a compromise on gun safety legislation. the associated press reports now, quote, the senators' talks have included discussions about ways to encourage states to make more mental health records available to the national system and the types of transactions that might be exempted from background checks, such as sales
11:40 pm
among relatives or to those who have permits to carry concealed weapons, said people who spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to describe the negotiations publicly. for that and other campaign politics we have our "hardball" strategist here tonight, democrat steve mcmahon and republican john feehery. john, let's talk about your party and the way it wants to position itself on the whole issue of what happened in newtown. i don't mean necessarily gun laws particularly but the issues of background checks, the issues of mental health records. is there a role for the republican party in gun safety? strategically speaking? >> obviously, you see that with tom coburn. he certainly believes that there is. and i do think that tom coburn is -- this could be a nixon goes to china moment for tom coburn and the nra and gun safety. >> where is john feehery? where were you? do you want something done on gun safety or not? >> i would like something done on gun safety. i would like something done -- i would like a more aggressive effort to get guns away from violent criminals. i'd like to get guns out -- make sure they don't get in the hands of crazy people. that's where i am.
11:41 pm
and i think that we do need to have a more aggressive background check, and i have been pretty public on that. >> how about the president? does he have to recognize reality here and go for what he can get? get a single, not a home run? even though he knows he's giving protection to the people on the center right and right? still be able to say they did something. there's a lot of strategy here. >> there's a lot of strategy. i used to work for senator kennedy, and senator kennedy after he got past his 30s and 40s decided what you should do in legislating is take what you can get and come back for the rest later. i think you saw that with the president on the budget negotiations. he raised taxes on the wealthy, and he's coming back now again saying we need balance to replace these $1.2 trillion fiscal cliff cuts or the sequestration cuts. so, you know, i think it's a victory, but i don't think it's -- >> well, here is the question. if you're the president, is it okay -- you're quibbling here. should the president go for what he can get? >> yes. and then he should come right back -- >> even if it means giving the
11:42 pm
other guys a break because they don't want to go for an assault ban. you don't think that would happen, john, from your party's end. can you imagine the speaker scheduling a vote on an assault weapons ban? >> it would never get out of the senate. senator reid would never let it happen. >> i don't think so either. >> it's never going to happen. >> some people -- >> hold on a second. >> some people think reid is bringing it up for a vote giving it to guys on the right, giving them a chance to say no to something because this goes too far and then they can say yes to something like a background check. >> one of the things -- >> i'm asking strategy. is that all right? >> a balanced approach is what everybody says they want. when you look at these things individually, people want an assault weapons ban. even republicans want -- >> how is that going to get passed? >> the 30 -- you know what? it's going to have to be debated by the public. the president has gotten good at going to the outside and bringing pressure from the outside in. he's done it two or three times very successfully. if he wants it badly enough, he can do it again. >> does he want to endanger
11:43 pm
senators from those states? >> steve, you're wrong. the fact of the matter is reid is not going to let it happen because he has people in cycle in tough states. mark pryor, mark begich from alaska. i don't think he wants to even bring it up for a vote. he might because it might be better for those guys being on record voting against it, but that's kind of risky, so we'll see. >> i think it's tricky for him. >> it is. >> how does he hold the majority of senators when you see every time you have a gun issue the middle of the country, from california to new york, is against you. >> everybody a looking back at what happened in 1994 saying it could happen again. the numbers this time are entirely different than they were in 1994. they're overwhelming in favor -- >> you know the intensity issue. who gets out and votes on this. >> but the people who are going to vote against somebody for voting in favor of responsible gun control are already voting for republicans, so, democrats, you have nothing to fear but fear itself. >> you want heidi heitkamp and jon tester to run on this issue? >> everybody knows nobody hunts with an assault weapon.
11:44 pm
if there's anybody out there that hunts with an assault weapon, please come hunting with me. >> i don't see how you win it. i don't know how you win on gun control in pennsylvania. >> sometimes you just have to do the right thing, chris, and this is something that the american public wants and they expect congress -- >> pick your fights. if it's your fight, pick it. let's move to the second topic, the gop civil war that's happening right now between the establishment and the tea party conservatives. karl rove is out there fighting it. jim vandehei wrote in politico, it's not just karl rove wanting to get rid of the crazies. the party as a whole does. one high profile republican strategist who obviously refused to have his name in order to avoid inflaming -- >> it is feehery. >> it wasn't me. >> said there is a deliberate effort by party leaders to marginalize the cranks, haters, and bigots. there's a lot of underbrush that needs to be cleaned out. republican after republican told us the party dodged a bullet
11:45 pm
with mitt romney's loss. if he had squeaked in, this vital reboot would have been delayed. >> wasn't that mike murphy? >> it was feehery. >> let's speak for your party, john. so many people in your party think you have to do a better job of proctoring who gets the nominations and don't just leave it to the grassroots. your view? >> well, this is obviously a pretty divisive issue -- >> where are you? >> i don't like cranks and crazy people. i want winners. i want people who can win. now, that being said, you got to be careful with the grassroots because you can't just dictate to them. so i think this is an education process. we need to educate voters. we need to make sure that the smart guys in the primaries have the resources, and this whole idea that club for growth and all these guys complaining that karl rove is getting involved in primaries, cry me a river. these guys have been getting involved in primaries for years -- >> how do you know how to pick winners? pat toomey won, he may be a senator for years. you have rubio, probably be a senator for years if he doesn't
11:46 pm
get elected president. sometimes the right cooks up people that are good politicians. sometimes they pick up people like sharron angle who can lose the easy ones, and we have seen that. >> there's no question about that. if you look at pat toomey and marco rubio, those guys are stars. this is why you've got to be real careful and why you have to have a vetting process. that doesn't mean you pick the winners and losers. you let the process go forward, but make sure everybody has a chance to get thoroughly vetted. that's the problem with sharron angle. >> are you with the establishment or the crazies? >> i'm with the establishment. the crazies hate me. >> okay. you are a leadership type. thank you, steve mcmahon and john feehery, who for some reason is not here today, he's lobbying on the hill or something. thank you. i'm sure for a good cause. up next, the director of the great new movie, my favorite movie of the year, "silver linings playbook", a film that puts mental illness, among other topics, in the spotlight. what a movie. david russell joins. this is "hardball," the place for politics.
11:47 pm
11:48 pm
former congressman jesse jackson, jr. has reached a plea deal with federal prosecutors. nbc news has learned jackson signed papers admitting violating federal campaign finance law. under the terms of the deal, he
11:49 pm
would plead guilty to converting campaign contributions to personal use. sentence could range from probation to some prison time. what a sad story. good kid i thought and i still do. jackson resigned from the congress back in november. we'll be right back. i'm making crabby snacks and
11:50 pm
11:51 pm
i'm making crabby snacks and homemades. >> come on, dad, be nice. she is making crabby snacks and homemades. come on, dad! >> what are you so up about? >> you're very happy. >> no, you're so up, up, up, up. >> isn't that a good thing? >> no. you're up, up, up. >> up. i don't know what that is. are you taking the proper dosage of your medication? >> am i taking the right dose? of course i am. >> okay. are you taking a little too many or something? >> no. if i was taking that, i would be on the floor, dad. >> unbelievable movie. welcome back to "hardball." i just love rooting for the underdog that was a clip from the sleeper hit movie of the year, my favorite, "silver linings playbook."
11:52 pm
it could win big at the academy awards with eight nominations including best picture and best director, and everybody in the movie is up for best actor. anyway, it's unbelievable. it's the first movie we're all for. the director, david russell. >> hello, chris. >> i love other movies you have done. i loved "the fighter" and "flirting with disaster." >> three days. >> three days you can -- [ laughter ] >> calls them like he cease them. >> i think this movie, i think it's got a couple of things going for it. first of all, it's like real people. i grew up middle-middle. everybody says 679 we were all middle-middle. regular people rooting for the eagles. that's how you pronounce it. believing that your zsu-zsu, that room can make the team. the whole family together. i wept to yesterday for my aunt. it's real.
11:53 pm
how did you figure out philly? how did you figure out us? >> i'm so sorry about your aunt. when i see the family that i wrote for my son, this picture, that's what i love. >> jenna lamia. >> oh my god! >> she is one of my neighbors. >> oh my god, she always said chris matthews was like an uncle to them and what a good guy you were. >> those girls used to collect our newspapers when we went away. >> the lamia sisters. >> they're great. >> tell me about the movie. you're up against the big guns. you're up against "lincoln." i think a lot of people grog to root for "lincoln" because it's our president, the country's history. and everybody is going to say daniel day lewis and tommy lee jones and sally field. their movie has performances about real people, not history. people next door, down the street. >> that's what our picture is. it's real people. my son has struggled with moody's order. i wrote this for five years. and i have hundreds of people.
11:54 pm
i just had your producer anne said to me tell me about somebody she knows. a young man is suicidal and bipolar and the family's life is turned upside down. it touches millions of people. you know when i don't meet each other, you know when you say yes, i know you, and we've been down this road together, that's a fight millions of families fight every day. >> a lot of people my age and older because of their religious beliefs or whatever, they stopped going to the movies, too much violence, too much sex. i'm going to say attend of the show, you got to go back to the movies for this. you'll remember why movies were great. >> i like to make movies with a lot of heart, and those are my favorite films. >> "the fighter." >> "the fighter" is all about heart. i could listen to those people all day, almost regardless of the story. >> how did people come from countries like australia, new zealand, i think of russell crowe and naomi watts, how did
11:55 pm
they learn to talk philly? you have the mother who talks philly. how are you teaching these accents when they're directing? people watching from my neighborhood say yeah. >> jacki weaver was nominated for a movie called "animal kingdom" when we were out with "the fighter." she is a phenomenal actress who soaked it up. we talked about the season when the eagles beat the cowboys, we soaked that up. we heard about the uncle who moved the remotes to point to the end zone, you better not touch them because they point to the end zone. this is all specific. >> where did you come up with zsu-zsu. i believe that something i'm doing in that room is going to affect -- i know everybody that somehow the way you sit, the way you move, did you leave the room for the beer, no, you got to stay here, that that somehow affects the results of the game. we all believe that. >> sometimes i end up thinking when i'm not watching my team, they do better. sometimes i think that too. you have that superstition tire,
11:56 pm
i used to believe if i ever rooted for holy cross or notre dame, it would kill them. >> yes, exactly. >> i wouldn't messages notre dame all this year when they went undefeated. if i said something about them identifying, they would lose the next game. >> and the night before the oscars, i'm superstitious, because they nominated the nominees. i called everyone from de niro to jennifer lawrence, i want you to know thank you we have the film. it's for my son and all the families who have been through such an ordeal with moody's order. i'm grateful, period. i let it go. i went to bed with peace. and when i woke up the next day, i was shocked we got any nomination. >> you were informed by your experience with your son matthew? >> my son matthew has struggled with moody's orders. it will turn your family upside down you. look for right medication, you look for the right behavioral program, schools. you look for the states to help you. you don't want to wake up when it's a crisis. we're a little backwards in this country with the way we handle it. >> i know we are. jennifer lawrence, by the way, the greatest actress of her generation. i have never seen a performance like this. i got more to say about this movie. thank you, david o. russell, great director with heart.
11:57 pm
we'll be right back right after this. in the middle of the night it can be frustrating. it's hard to turn off and go back to sleep. intermezzo is the first and only prescription sleep aid approved for use as needed in the middle of the night when you can't get back to sleep. it's an effective sleep medicine you don't take before bedtime. take it in bed only when you need it and have at least four hours left for sleep. do not take intermezzo if you have had an allergic reaction to drugs containing zolpidem, such as ambien. allergic reactions such as shortness of breath or swelling of your tongue or throat may occur and may be fatal. intermezzo should not be taken if you have taken another sleep medicine at bedtime or in the middle of the night or drank alcohol that day. do not drive or operate machinery until at least 4 hours after taking intermezzo and you're fully awake. driving, eating, or engaging in other activities while not fully awake without remembering the event the next day have been reported. abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation,
11:58 pm
hallucinations, or confusion. alcohol or taking other medicines that make you sleepy may increase these risks. in depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. intermezzo, like most sleep medicines, has some risk of dependency. common side effects are headache, nausea, and fatigue. so if you suffer from middle-of-the-night insomnia, ask your doctor about intermezzo and return to sleep again. ♪
11:59 pm


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on